Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?

[HurtinMinorKey]

If the strongly rumored specifications for the new 5D3 are an indication, we now know exactly what the actual difference is "between a video camera and a non-video camera." It's about $1000.

And it's $1000 because the video crowd are happy to pay that for a camera that will nearly equal what they'd have to pay $15K to $50K for in a dedicated video camera. Very astute on Canon's part, but also somewhat tragic as they're throwing the still photographers who made them under the bus -- where we probably now belong anyway in a world transitioning to full HD video!

uh ... no. that's the price difference for a 61-point AF system and 6 FPS shutter. the 5D Mark II came with video and it cost $2500.

they're not throwing anyone under the bus, they ran the numbers and predicted that the market could sustain a $3500 FF pro-AF camera. people on these forums love to assume that pricing structure is something 'owed' to them by the companies, whether Canon or Nikon. no such thing. they are pricing their goods the same way that you price your goods as a photographer. if I feel my potential client base is willing to pay $4000 for a wedding package there is no way you're going to get me to sell it for $3000.

I think you perfectly make my point on the pricing. Canon was surprised by demand for the video capability in the 5D2. They probably sat in meetings for two years saying, "Damn, if we'd know it would be this popular, we'd have priced it at $3K or more." With a 5D3, they'll now say they have addressed what the market said were the small deficiencies in the 5D2 video, do a business reset and price it at $3500 -- with certainty they'll sell as many or more to the same video crowd who paid $2500. That's simply how business works, and I wouldn't expect otherwise. But the demand that drives the pricing is coming from the video, not the stills.

And the whole discussion could be moot as that rumored $3500 price may be a kit price. Who knows!

What I will disagree with is the point that better AF and shutter are worth $1000. In a stills-only camera, they could never get away with that. Also, I'd be surprised if their unit cost for such an upgrade were over $100.

My guess is this is accurate. I think the dual flash cards means a better video codec, or maybe even 4k. It kinda seems like it's gonna be the old 5dii with better AF and video, along with the requisite faster processing and fps.

 

[Neeneko]

My guess is this is accurate. I think the dual flash cards means a better video codec, or maybe even 4k. It kinda seems like it's gonna be the old 5dii with better AF and video, along with the requisite faster processing and fps.

I suspect the dual flash cards are for flexibility. Since the two slots are different formats you would not get any write gain, just choice of which card type to use.

 

[Neeneko]

Apples to Oranges. It has absolutely nothing to do with MF digital being dedicated to stills but entirely with the size of the sensor. Of course you're going to get a better image with a sensor 4x the size. In the same way a point and shoot doesn't produce the same quality as a DSLR

Actually, it has everything to do with them being dedicated stills.
DSLR manufacturers are including video because enough people want it to justify the costs. MF manufacturers are not including it because not enough of their market wants it to justify the costs.

This means that when building their systems, they don't have to make video vs still design compromises, they don't have to invest in the extra silicone, they don't have to do the extra R&D, they don't have to do the additional testing. Every piece of the development process can focus on 'what makes a good still camera' without having to take all those video elements into account.

By being able to focus on a limited use case, a larger percent of their resources go into making something that does that use case well. By splitting between cases, DSLR manufactures are forced to build a product that, for the same effort, does each of those cases less well because of the opportunity cost.

 

[rocketdesigner]

Canon was surprised by demand for the video capability in the 5D2. They probably sat in meetings for two years saying, "Damn, if we'd know it would be this popular, we'd have priced it at $3K or more." That's simply how business works....

"How business works" is if Canon truly thought that, they would have gone ahead with a price increase ... as other manufacturing companies do all the time.

 

[distant.star]

In all the years I worked as a business journalist, I rarely, if ever, saw a major company do what you suggest with a major product. Next product cycle, yes, but not current product; such a move would generate too much ill will.

Small business might get away with it, but not a company the size and stature of Canon.

Canon was surprised by demand for the video capability in the 5D2. They probably sat in meetings for two years saying, "Damn, if we'd know it would be this popular, we'd have priced it at $3K or more." That's simply how business works....

"How business works" is if Canon truly thought that, they would have gone ahead with a price increase ... as other manufacturing companies do all the time.

 

[Rocky]

"HATE" is too strong a word. "Do not want " may be a better term. Let us face it, Canon or any other company will not give us 'Video capability" for free. Just the op[posite, they are using it to justify a higher price. So for the people that do not use it. They feel that they are throwing the money away. May be Canon can take a lesson from some of the software maker. Customer paid for the option and use a software key to unlock the option.

 

[TheRascalKing0000]

Customer paid for the option and use a software key to unlock the option.

Are you really suggesting Canon use a licensing model to lock capabilities that are intrinsic in the hardware? I think that would generate WAY more ill will than just a price increase.

 

[SPG]

DSLR manufacturers are including video because enough people want it to justify the costs. MF manufacturers are not including it because not enough of their market wants it to justify the costs.

The reason that medium format cameras don't shoot video is that they can't. The sensors are so large that they can't process that much information fast enough to produce a video image, or at least a video image that would be worth a damn because of all the line skipping and pixel binning that would be required.
If you look at what is in that range, and again this isn't even anywhere close to the sensor size of a MF camera, the RED digital cinema cameras can shoot in 4k and they have to be on the bleeding edge of new tech to do that. REDs are big burly cameras that cost a lot, tend to break down, produce a ton of heat, and yet are very popular.
Trust me, if any of the MF camera makers could figure out a way to add video to their cameras they would add it in a heartbeat to capture some of that RED market.

 

[AvTvM]

Customer paid for the option and use a software key to unlock the option.

Are you really suggesting Canon use a licensing model to lock capabilities that are intrinsic in the hardware? I think that would generate WAY more ill will than just a price increase.

it would be hacked within the week the first cameras are out in the wild.

 

[AvTvM]

why the hate?

The evolution of DSLR's into HDSLR's is hard to accept by those who will never use video functionality.

And while I am on the video side of the end-user fence, I understand their feelings ...why are they paying for video in a form factor that- up to recent history - has been exclusively their domain .. still photography.

In fact, when I spend literally hours setting up and fine tuning for a shoot using an HDSLR, the effort involved is similar to shooting 35mm cinema ... the camera requires exact, metered lighting, the gear (mattebox, Follow Focus, external monitors, sound recorders et al) takes forever to properly assemble ... I wonder why I just didnt invest in a regular video camera to begin with (and probably saved money all the while).

So let the pure photographers gripe, they have a point. But at the end of the day, I love the craft, the gear, and the final product that I am getting from my camera.

exactly. Except that we will not only gripe and shut up, but continue to tell Canon and the other manufacturers that we want "pure still cameras". One of those companies will (eventually) listen and get an amazing amount of business from us.

 

[NormanBates]

would you buy the same camera, with the same stills capabilities, for the same price, if it didn't have video?

because offering a "stills only" camera is easy

making it take stills better than other cameras that record video, for the same price, or with same image quality but for a lower price, is not as easy as you make it sound (if it were, you'd be at sigmarumors.com)

 

[Orangutan]

Except that we will not only gripe and shut up, but continue to tell Canon and the other manufacturers that we want "pure still cameras". One of those companies will (eventually) listen and get an amazing amount of business from us.

No, their engineers will laugh at the request. I've yet to see a reasonable expression of how removing video will do anything positive for stills. All the engineering that goes into video actually makes stills better. Removing video will turn it into a niche product that has no better function, but carries a niche (i.e. inflated) price tag.

 

[Neeneko]

No, their engineers will laugh at the request. I've yet to see a reasonable expression of how removing video will do anything positive for stills. All the engineering that goes into video actually makes stills better. Removing video will turn it into a niche product that has no better function, but carries a niche (i.e. inflated) price tag.

As an engineer who spent years working in embedded systems.. no.. I would wager their engineers will not laugh.

No.. the engineering that goes into making the video capabilities not NOT make stills better, it makes them worse. Any time during the design process you have a requirement that the device be able to do A and B (rather then just A or B) compromises will be made, designs become more complex, more hardware is required, and testing time increases.

Now, it can be argued that adding video increases sales enough to offset the additional cost, but make no mistake, the same amount of development resources put into a pure still camera would produce a superior single purpose device. Though I imagine once the newness of 'video in everything' wears off we will see a reevaluation of associating this additional effort with every model produced... esp as I am guessing dedicated video devices will come down in price to compete.

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

It all depends on wether in the long run a large enough body of costumers treat video as a core requirement in a DSLR. At this moment in time there is such a critical mass since there are no dedicated alternatives at this price range. That will probably change somewhat in the future but it is unclear if the magical combination of stills-video-price will falter.

My point is that at this point in time stating that a non-video camera would be this or that much better at stills is as relevant as discussing the necessity and complexity of incorporating auto focus in cameras. There are many good reasons why it is not needed or even wanted but they are utterly irrelevant.

 

[Orangutan]

Any time during the design process you have a requirement that the device be able to do A and B (rather then just A or B) compromises will be made, designs become more complex, more hardware is required, and testing time increases.

This is the part that confuses me: I'm a former programmer (though not a trained EE) but I don't see A and B being different here. To my mind, video is is basically 30fps of still images encoded in a single file, along with a bit of audio. You might argue that the algorithms are different, and perhaps they are. But the code must be written for consumer cameras, and the chips (presumably) use the same instruction set. (I doubt the DigicN for PowerShot is different from the DigicN for EOS). So the code is already written, and need only be incorporated into the EOS firmware. Furthermore, the high-speed sensor reading necessary for video can only help still images.

In short, I'd ask you this: what, precisely, of the following chain of events is substantially different between still and video? And which of that is not already a requirement of consumer cameras?

1. Expose sensor
2. Read data from sensor
3. Demosaic
4. Encode a frame
5. Save to media

Really, I don't get it: why is video not just a (nearly) free bonus?

 

[SPG]

I shoot in natural light. I demand that Canon remove the hotshoe!

Ok, seriously though...removing every feature that you personally don't use is not going to make your camera better. The reason is that all these features increase the number of people who buy the camera and increase the amount of money that can be spent on R&D to make the next camera even better.

I still haven't seen anyone show proof that video capabilities are harming the photo capability. Positing theories about R&D and engineering doesn't mean any more than the latest conspiracy theory. I want to see a video feature that has directly hurt photo performance.

 

[AvTvM]

In short, I'd ask you this: what, precisely, of the following chain of events is substantially different between still and video? And which of that is not already a requirement of consumer cameras?

1. Expose sensor
2. Read data from sensor
3. Demosaic
4. Encode a frame
5. Save to media

Really, I don't get it: why is video not just a (nearly) free bonus?

I am no engineer.

But as I see it:

For video, a sensor with 2 megapixels (FullHD - 1920x1080) is all that is required. Videos are viewed on monitors or on screens/beamers - all of which offer - at best! - Full HD.
The sensor+readout+processor needs to be able to handle an ongoing massive stream of data without any interruption. Image quality of single frames however is a secondary requirement at best.
The sensor needs to be of a type that can handle capture incoming light for "indefinite periods" of time. Cooling that thing is a major hardware issue.
These requirements preclude certain sensor types (e.g. CCD-FT) from being used in regular video-enabled cameras altogether. This narrows the choice of image capturing device and layout friom the start to a much narrower field than for "stills capture only".

For photography (stills) hat is needed/wanted?
Sensors with the highest possible resolution [currently 36 MP+ on 36x24mm "FF"sensor size], with the best possible S/R [translating into good DR, low hi-ISO noise, and all other goodies us photographers want). Image quality of each single frame/capture is paramount, speed is a secondary concern - 10 fps more than good enough for virtually anything. Exposure times are typically fractions of a second, typically max. 30 seconds, and only in very rae instances minutes. Cooling is much less of a concern than in video use ... and yes, live view has is blurring that requirement a bit. But bottom line: the whole data readout/processing pipeline needs to be geared to highest "single capture performance" vs. "streaming performance".

These two sets of requirements are not 180 degrees opposite of each other, but there is a significant rift between them. Fulfilling both requirements necessitates an enormous amount of compromise on both ends .. for video and for stills capture, making the final product significantly more difficult to design, test, manufacture = more expensive, more prone to defects, less good in each of the 2 disciplines.

"Video" in DSLRs of all things with all the mechanical stuff (anything inside the mirror box) and a lot of the optical stuff (prism, viewfinder etc.) really *in the way of video* rather than complementary is an aberration in camera design. Looking at mirrorless cameras changes the pictures a lot, but for DSLRs its madness.

The sole reason HDSLRs got popular with videographers is their relative pricing compared to the "traditionally outlandish prices" for (relatively) large-sensored videocameras. All of a sudden, a $ 2,000 body comes with a sensor that rivals old-school videocams at $ 100.000+ ... that is the appeal in HDSLRs. It is a boon for videographers for sure, but not for photography/stills capture! HDSRLs are highly affordable to a large group of aspiring moving images people, and given the price they are more than illing to put up with all of the disadvantages HDSLRs bring to their work. Basically, all they use in a HDSLR is the sensor and the data processing pipeline. They (generally) don't want AF, but will rather add "follow-focus" contraptions and all sorts of bulky rigs around the poor little HDSLRs. They don't need an optical viewfinder (with heavy/bulky, costly glass prism). Basically, 50% of the cost of an HDSLR is "wasted" on them. Or, put another way, the money put into AF, mirrorbox, prism, optical viewfinder should go into even more video-suitable sensors+data processing capabilities. No reason, why there should not be 2k video cams with an FF sensor and an EF/PL mount in front. Without AF system, no OVF, but top notch EVF. In one word: a videocam! Something like a Canon C300, but at $ 2,000 not at an insane cost of $ 16,000 $

At the same time stills shooters should get a 5D III with e.g. a 24 MP FF "stills-optimized" sensor [whatever type/design may be best for that], top-notch AF, top-notch optical viewfinder minus all video-related features for $ 2,000 or less.

I guess that should answer the question, whether video-capability is just "a little freebie" on a HDSLR. It is not. It is a product design aberration from the very start!

 

[Cetalis]

AvTvM, all you've just said is theoretical; it's certainly possible, but I have yet to see a defect in current DSLRs caused by the addition of video.

 

[AvTvM]

AvTvM, all you've just said is theoretical;

wrong. It's dead on, 100% real-life.

For all the reasons a number of people have detailed in this thread, digital cameras designed to capture both still images and video are a huge comrpomise from the very start. All of the points I've made are valid and very real.

 

[distant.star]

Thanks, Av.

This is a comprehensive explanation that makes a lot of sense to me.

In short, I'd ask you this: what, precisely, of the following chain of events is substantially different between still and video? And which of that is not already a requirement of consumer cameras?

1. Expose sensor
2. Read data from sensor
3. Demosaic
4. Encode a frame
5. Save to media

Really, I don't get it: why is video not just a (nearly) free bonus?

I am no engineer.

But as I see it:

For video, a sensor with 2 megapixels (FullHD - 1920x1080) is all that is required. Videos are viewed on monitors or on screens/beamers - all of which offer - at best! - Full HD.
The sensor+readout+processor needs to be able to handle an ongoing massive stream of data without any interruption. Image quality of single frames however is a secondary requirement at best.
The sensor needs to be of a type that can handle capture incoming light for "indefinite periods" of time. Cooling that thing is a major hardware issue.
These requirements preclude certain sensor types (e.g. CCD-FT) from being used in regular video-enabled cameras altogether. This narrows the choice of image capturing device and layout friom the start to a much narrower field than for "stills capture only".

For photography (stills) hat is needed/wanted?
Sensors with the highest possible resolution [currently 36 MP+ on 36x24mm "FF"sensor size], with the best possible S/R [translating into good DR, low hi-ISO noise, and all other goodies us photographers want). Image quality of each single frame/capture is paramount, speed is a secondary concern - 10 fps more than good enough for virtually anything. Exposure times are typically fractions of a second, typically max. 30 seconds, and only in very rae instances minutes. Cooling is much less of a concern than in video use ... and yes, live view has is blurring that requirement a bit. But bottom line: the whole data readout/processing pipeline needs to be geared to highest "single capture performance" vs. "streaming performance".

These two sets of reuirements are not 180 degrees opposite of each other, but there is a significant rift betwenn them. Fulfilling both requirements necessitates an enormous amounts of compromises (on bioth ends .. video and stills capture!), making the final product significantly more diffcult to design, test, manufacture = more expensive, more prone to defects, less good in each of the 2 disciplines.

"Video" in DSLRs of all things with all the mechanical S___ (anything inside the mirror box) and a lot of the optical stuff (prism, viewfinder and assorted stuff) really *in the way of video* rather than complementary is an aberration in camera design. Looking at mirrorless cameras changes the pictures a lot, but for DSLRs ...

The only reason HDSLRs got popular with videographers is their relative pricing compared to the "traditionally outlandish prices" for (realtively) large-sensored videocameras. a 2000 body will offer a sensor that can rival old-school videocams at 100.000. That is the appeal in HDSLRs. It is a boon for videographers for sure, but not for photography/stills capture! Because HDSRLs are highly affordable to a large group of aspiring moving images people, they have to and are of course willing to put up with all the disadvantages a HDSLRs bring to their work. Basically, all they use of a HDSLR is the sensor and the data processing pipeline. They (generally) don't want AF but will rather add "follow-focus" contraptions and all sorts of bulky rigs around the poor little HDSLRs. They don't need or want an optical viewfinder (with heavy/bulky, costly glass prism) - none of it! Basically, 50% of the cost of an HDSLR is "wasted" on them. Or, put another way, the money put into AF, mirrorbox, prism, optical viewfinder should go into even more video-suitable sensors+data processing capabilities. No reason, why there should not be 2k video cams with an FF sensor and an EF/PL mount in front. Without AF system, no OVF, but top notch EVF. Yes, exactly - a videocam. Something like a C300, but at $ 2000 not at $ 16000 $.

At the same time there is no reason, why stills shooters should not get a 5D II with 24 MP FF "stuills-optimized" sensor [whatever type/design may be best for that], top-notch AF, top-notch optical viewfinder but minus all video capability in the entire processing pipeline for $ 2000.

I guess that should answer the question, whether video-capability is just "a little freebie" on a HDSLR. It is not. It is a product design aberration from the very start!